Click the red pepper!
Don’t Veg Out
Become a Hero, Donate Monthly
Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up
Posted on 01/23/2012 11:20:48 AM PST by Kaslin
Many folks who oppose Mitt Romney do so due to the uncertainty of where he will stand on certain issues; his support of the individual mandate that forces people to buy health care insurance; and a general tendency to abandon conservative principles when expedient.
When you look past Newt Gingrich's marvelous oratory skills and unrivaled ability to "articulate" what most Americans believe, you start discovering a politician with many of the same issues that plague Romney.
Romney and Gingrich both give great lip service about the sanctity of marriage and family values. But while Romney's past reveals he doesn't always stand up and defend marriage when the going gets rough, well, Gingrich's past reveals - in a very different way - that he doesn't either. Both politicians claim they have "seen the light" and are now staunch supporters of traditional marriage. And, I for one, still doubt that both of them really do. And I seriously question whether either man has the conviction to unflinchingly stand for the rights and protection of the preborn when there are deals to be made - which there always are in Washington.
When it comes to a plethora of conservative issues, both politicians are found wanting. Romney, has a "moderate" take on nearly everything; Newt, while seemingly a staunch economic conservative, is a supporter of big government in critical areas - as a champion of the ethanol mandates; of the Endangered Species Act; and of the huge government prescription drug debacle. All of which, by the way, have huge negative economic impacts on our economy, jobs and our future.
The big difference between the two sides of the Mitt/Newt counterfeit conservative coin is this: while a Romney presidency will be dangerous to the preservation of conservative principles, a Gingrich presidency has the ability to entirely obliterate much of what we hold dear. Why? Because Romney has never been a Capitol Hill insider and thus doesn't know the ropes, and he can't seem to inspire passion or wield much influence. Gingrich, on the other hand, knows precisely how the system works and has the personality of a pit bull on steroids. And he has worked the system brilliantly - both for good and bad- for many years, as Congressman, as Speaker of the House, as a Washington power broker. He is a bully who thrives on power, fueled by an ego and an appetite that can't be matched. And he has repeatedly demonstrated that he behaves exactly how he wants to behave in every situation. When Newt wants it - Newt gets it. Period.
And that makes Newt much more dangerous to many of our conservative principles than Mitt could ever hope to be.
The ability that Newt has to make us forget or discount his many ethical violations in the past - both personal and as Speaker - makes my blood run cold. Do I believe in forgiveness? Of course I do. But forgiving Newt of his many martial infidelities is between God and Newt, and the people Newt betrayed and Newt. While God erases all sins of those who truly confess, the harm done largely remains. In the case of the adulterer, the families remain fractured; in the case of the arsonist, the building is still in ashes; in the case of the murderer, the victim is still dead.
And, on this earth, there are still consequences, even for the forgiven. In Newt's wake, there is human carnage - people he has used and discarded at will, and a legacy of repeatedly violating the public trust of the American people. His constant display of poor judgment over the years shows that he is fatally marred by, well, by poor judgment - and an ego so huge he always seems to believe he can "get away with it". The combination of poor judgment, repeated ethical violations and an unbridled ego is a recipe for disaster. And the very last thing you want to give a person with that record is the most powerful position in the world. Espcially if that person enjoys being a bully and has the oratory ability to intimidate and manipulate; and the uncanny ability to tell the masses exactly what they want to hear - and convince them to actually believe it.
Neither Romney nor Gingrich is an acceptable choice for conservatives who believe in timeless values. It's time to discard the fool's gold and put our efforts behind the real deal.
I have written a column on why Rick Santorum is both the best man to beat Obama, and why he is a good man - a man we can depend on to champion conservative principles with strength, conviction, wisdom and humility. A man who know how to get things done - ethically. I hope you will read it and prayerfully consider supporting Santorum - our best hope - for president.
Sorry for the private FReepmail... I am not posting publicly for awhile. Santorum would also weaken the Second Amendment and he lied in the last debate about gun locks, guns shows and the NRA.
LLS
He does NOT support SOPA and you know it. He supported Specter so good guys like Alito could get confirmed. I don’t believe that Toomey would have won in ‘04, but I voted for him in the primary, and wrote him in in the general. I didn’t agree with Rick at the time, but Specter did keep his word on the SCOTUS nomination, and Santorum suffered in Pa. You may hold that against him forever, but Gingrich campaigned for Dede Scuzzbucket in NY. She is also a radical leftist who became a Democrat.
Do you remember also that Gingrich supports statehood for Puerto Rico?
What does SOPA/PIPA have anything to do with being pro life? Which Rick Santorum certainly is
No, I don't let self promoting amateurs like Santorum tell me what to think of them, their record and actions have already illustrated who they are. And Santorum is not even close to what he is trying to convince people he is.
For your information the reason Santorum endorsed Specter over Toomey was because in 2005 and 2006 Specter, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, shepherded the confirmations of Judge John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Otherwise he probably would have endorsed Pat Toomey
This pretty much says it all. I know Jack Kemp’s former campaign manager in Georgia (yeah I’m that old) and he knew Newt all the way back to his college professor days and told me that Newt will say ANYTHING to get elected, and he told me that long after his Jack Kemp days, so it wasn’t a politically motivated comment. Newt is playing FR people like a Stradavarius and I can imagine they day when his supporters will rue the day they pulled for this guy. The GOP field is just awful. We are in deep trouble.
While I am not a Roman Catholic myself, I would like to ask, do I err in my understanding that when Newt joined your church not too long ago, they vetted him for sincerity?
The article is spot on.
It is unfortunate that Rick Santorum is the best candidate still in the campaign.
I really thought Michelle Bachmann was the best of the field. I thought Herman Cain could easily win the election but he couldn’t stand the heat.
I don’t like Rick Santorum well enough to send money to and there is no way I sending money to Rino Romney or Noot Gingrich.
I enjoy hearing Gingrich putting down the press. I enjoy and get a laugh at his quick thinking. I don’t get a laugh at his inability to play by the rules. He is a serial adulterer, a Glogal Warmist, a cap and trade supporter, he wants to legalize illegal immigrants, ulgh!
I am afraid that Obama will have fun with Newt, not in the debates but perhaps those too. There are so many recordings of Newt saying almost anything you want to hear that he won’t even come close. I’m afraid the die is case, we will get 4 more years of Obama.
Santorum is too green and brittle.
Newt has Obama’s “So what about my history?” attitude trumped in spades. If Obama even tries that with Newt, Obama will be shown for the negative infinity that HE came from.
If Obama pulls up Newt’s past record in a dbate, the easy answer for Newt would be “Yes,I do have a record.. Where’s yours?”
“For your information the reason Santorum endorsed Specter over Toomey was because in 2005 and 2006 Specter, as Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, shepherded the confirmations of Judge John Roberts and Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Otherwise he probably would have endorsed Pat Toomey”
First, I dont think you have any evidence of that. Santorum never really bucked the establishment on the side of liberty. Also, if you think Newt has baggage, wait until people look at Santorum’s leadership PAC slush fund funded by lobbyists while he was in office.
The post you’re responding to (#25) actually lists things Santorum has done to indicate he is a big government conservative. Not Newt.
You may end up being right about Newt, but that isn’t my sense. I think we’re seeing pretty much the real Newt. Yes, he might disappoint at times, which can be said of any politician, but in the end i think we’ll be far better off (both the country and the conservative movement) with him as President than with any of the other remaining likely possibilities.
Not just Alito, but also Roberts
I fear the same. Gingrich means four more years of Obama.
Excellent
Oh yeah, I’m no Santorum fan either, but indeed I stand corrected.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) gives Newt and Romney a lower 2nd Amendment Score than Santorum.
http://gunowners.org/2012presidential.htm
Your post is interesting as you’re taking the word of someone who knew him “way back when”. At the same time, there are a large number of people who also knew him in the past, folks from the Reagan administration, who have endorsed him enthusiastically.
Newt Gingrich has gone through AA, counseling and a religious conversion to Roman Catholicism. He is now 68 years old. People change and his platform is a positive one Conservative Republicans support.
Sounds like your comment is definitely a politically motivated one.
Go pound sand.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.